Avengers: Infinity War (Post-release)

What did you think of Avengers: Infinity War?


  • Total voters
    233
Maybe. He doesn't usually do stuff like that when he talks about the movies on Twitter, though. He seemed pretty sincere. He said he had to fight to even get the post credits scene into GOTG v2.
 
I have never been a huge Marvel comics fan but I know enough to be dangerous about Thanos and the Infinity stones/gauntlet. However I have questions about Thanos as seen in the movie.

Is there any comic book precedent for Thanos seeing himself as this altruist who’s willing to make the big, tough decisions to save half of the universe from itself? I always thought that in the comics, he was destroying half the life in the universe simply to appease the physical embodiment of Death. Has that changed?

Either way, if we take the MCU Thanos on his own terms, and he is this sorrowful villain who thinks he is serving the greater good, aren’t there a bunch of other less-horrific ways that he could have achieved his goal?

Like, once he had the fully-loaded IG, couldn’t he have just slashed fertility rates across the universe so that half the universe just died off naturally?

Or, if for some reason he couldn’t take that longer path and had to do it right now, couldn’t he use the Time Stone/Gen to prevent half of the universe’s current population from ever being born the first place?

And if that wouldn’t work, couldn’t he have, in the name of mercy, just “blinked” people out of existence instead of letting them spend the final 10 seconds of their lives in abject terror that they are disintegrating and have no idea why?

And, again, in the name of mercy, couldn’t he have made the survivors “forget” their loved ones who were eradicated, so the survivors didn’t live out the rest of their lives in grief and depression?

Finally, how many more people died due to the consequential effects of these disintegrations? Like, on Earth, how many more were killed or maimed in car accidents, plane crashes, etc.?

Thanos is super-intelligent, right? Even in the movie, that seems apparent. So I am having trouble buying this “tragic villain” thing who “only did what is necessary” when he could have met his goal in several more “humane” ways.

But maybe I am missing something (other than “those other ways you mentioned would not make for a very good movie”). Anyone care to set me straight?
 
I have never been a huge Marvel comics fan but I know enough to be dangerous about Thanos and the Infinity stones/gauntlet. However I have questions about Thanos as seen in the movie.

Is there any comic book precedent for Thanos seeing himself as this altruist who’s willing to make the big, tough decisions to save half of the universe from itself? I always thought that in the comics, he was destroying half the life in the universe simply to appease the physical embodiment of Death. Has that changed?

Either way, if we take the MCU Thanos on his own terms, and he is this sorrowful villain who thinks he is serving the greater good, aren’t there a bunch of other less-horrific ways that he could have achieved his goal?

Like, once he had the fully-loaded IG, couldn’t he have just slashed fertility rates across the universe so that half the universe just died off naturally?

Or, if for some reason he couldn’t take that longer path and had to do it right now, couldn’t he use the Time Stone/Gen to prevent half of the universe’s current population from ever being born the first place?

And if that wouldn’t work, couldn’t he have, in the name of mercy, just “blinked” people out of existence instead of letting them spend the final 10 seconds of their lives in abject terror that they are disintegrating and have no idea why?

And, again, in the name of mercy, couldn’t he have made the survivors “forget” their loved ones who were eradicated, so the survivors didn’t live out the rest of their lives in grief and depression?

Finally, how many more people died due to the consequential effects of these disintegrations? Like, on Earth, how many more were killed or maimed in car accidents, plane crashes, etc.?

Thanos is super-intelligent, right? Even in the movie, that seems apparent. So I am having trouble buying this “tragic villain” thing who “only did what is necessary” when he could have met his goal in several more “humane” ways.

But maybe I am missing something (other than “those other ways you mentioned would not make for a very good movie”). Anyone care to set me straight?


Maybe I'm jumping in too fast to think it out clearly.... but my take away was that those options weren't brought forth cuz he's a psychopath still filled with hate.

Hitler wanted to eliminate entire races and went about it in the worst way... he actually thought he was doing good.



It's like that TLJ thing about shooting a ship though other ships in lightspeed... "Well why don't they do that all the time?!!?"


Well planes flown into a building did a lot of damage.... we don't fly 747's into buildings.


I think it's just psychos gonna psycho.



*Edit...

You know... I write this crap while I'm literally in the middle of editing at work... I don't have time to really think, and when I review after posting I only think "that sounds dumb... I need to think more before I post...."

But if I waited til I had time to actually articulate thoughts, I'd have to necro-post on this thread.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I'm jumping in too fast to think it out clearly.... but my take away was that those options weren't brought forth cuz he's a psychopath still filled with hate.

Hitler wanted to eliminate entire races and went about it in the worst way... he actually thought he was doing good.



It's like that TLJ thing about shooting a ship though other ships in lightspeed... "Well why don't they do that all the time?!!?"


Well planes flown into a building did a lot of damage.... we don't fly 747's into buildings.


I think it's just psychos gonna psycho.



*Edit...

You know... I write this crap while I'm literally in the middle of editing at work... I don't have time to really think, and when I review after posting I only think "that sounds dumb... I need to think more before I post...."

But if I waited til I had time to actually articulate thoughts, I'd have to neco-post on this thread.

I think that gets to the heart of my question. Is he truly a “mad” Titan who isn’t seeing things as clearly as it seems? Or is he really not as altruistic as he seems to think?
 
I have never been a huge Marvel comics fan but I know enough to be dangerous about Thanos and the Infinity stones/gauntlet. However I have questions about Thanos as seen in the movie.

Is there any comic book precedent for Thanos seeing himself as this altruist who’s willing to make the big, tough decisions to save half of the universe from itself? I always thought that in the comics, he was destroying half the life in the universe simply to appease the physical embodiment of Death. Has that changed?
No. I'm glad they changed it. Not that it didn't work in the comics but it doesn't translate as well to the movies.

Either way, if we take the MCU Thanos on his own terms, and he is this sorrowful villain who thinks he is serving the greater good, aren’t there a bunch of other less-horrific ways that he could have achieved his goal?
It's implied that, for centuries prior to seeking out the stones he had been conducting this same extinction planet by planet.


Is there a less horrific way to carry out mass extinction for greater good?
Maybe you should ask Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler or Kodos, the Executioner of Tarsus IV.

Like, once he had the fully-loaded IG, couldn’t he have just slashed fertility rates across the universe so that half the universe just died off naturally

Or, if for some reason he couldn’t take that longer path and had to do it right now, couldn’t he use the Time Stone/Gen to prevent half of the universe’s current population from ever being born the first place?
I don't think he was able to acquire the prophylactic stone.

And if that wouldn’t work, couldn’t he have, in the name of mercy, just “blinked” people out of existence instead of letting them spend the final 10 seconds of their lives in abject terror that they are disintegrating and have no idea why?

And, again, in the name of mercy, couldn’t he have made the survivors “forget” their loved ones who were eradicated, so the survivors didn’t live out the rest of their lives in grief and depression?
He likely forgot to include those conditions because he was a little preoccupied with a Stormbreaker in his sternum.

Finally, how many more people died due to the consequential effects of these disintegrations? Like, on Earth, how many more were killed or maimed in car accidents, plane crashes, etc.?
they were a bonus.

Thanos is super-intelligent, right? Even in the movie, that seems apparent. So I am having trouble buying this “tragic villain” thing who “only did what is necessary” when he could have met his goal in several more “humane” ways.
He's also insane.

My dad could have disciplined me with child psychology when I was a kid. It just so happens I got smacked instead. Go figure.

But maybe I am missing something (other than “those other ways you mentioned would not make for a very good movie”). Anyone care to set me straight?
The movie doesn't argue that Thanos' argument is remotely tenable. It's not trying to pose an ethical paradox. Clearly Thanos is wrong and a psychopath. The film simply portrays him as someone with power and a plausibly twisted motive. As I said, it's like Pol Pot on a grander scale. It's been pointed out that the film contrasts his sacrifice of Gamora with the hesitation of Scarlet Witch to kill Vision or Peter to shoot Gamora when the fate of a universe would be at stake. Assuming there was no expedient alternative to mass extinction Thanos would argue that mercy and sentiment only confound a person's conviction to do what's right.
 
Last edited:
Eliminating half the existing population of the galaxy is expedient. Simply put, it's the shortest route between two points. I believe that seeing his planet suffer and die drove Thanos over the edge and that he no longer cares what others think. This is the way he's decided it's going to be and we're going to fix this as quickly as possible. If that means a whole lotta people gotta die? Well, that sucks, but they'll get over it, which was his point in bringing up the fact that Gamorra's homeworld, post-Thanos, was a paradise.
 
No. I'm glad they changed it. Not that it didn't work in the comics but it doesn't translate as well to the movies.

It's implied that, for centuries prior to seeking out the stones he had been conducting this same extinction planet by planet.

Yes, but he didn't have unlimited power over time and space back then.


Maybe you should ask Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler or Kodos, the Executioner of Tarsus IV.

Not sure why you altered my quote. I never said "less horrifying ways to commit mass extinction". "Extinction" isn't even his goal.

I don't think he was able to acquire the prophylactic stone.

Funny. But still, he can do literally anything with the IG, right?

He likely forgot to include those conditions because he was a little preoccupied with a Stormbreaker in his sternum.

Clearly, Stormbreaker in the chest did not pose any real impediment to a plan that he had been working on for, as you noted, centuries. He could have just used the Time Gem again.

they were a bonus.

That undercuts his whole motivation, or at least what he says his motivation is. He's not looking to take life for "fun". The movie takes pains to demonstrate that he doesn't want to do any of this, but feels he has to do it

He's also insane.

Well, that's just it. Is he? I know he's the "mad Titan" in the comics, but that's him with a totally different motivation. Is MCU Thanos insane? Or is he super-damaged by the loss of Titan that his morals and logic are catastrophically out of whack? Or is he just really, really arrogant?

My dad could have disciplined me with child psychology when I was a kid. It just so happens I got smacked instead. Go figure.

Alrighty, then.

The movie doesn't argue that Thanos' argument is remotely tenable. It's not trying to pose an ethical paradox. Clearly Thanos is wrong and a psychopath. The film simply portrays him as someone with power and a plausibly twisted motive. As I said, it's like Pol Pot on a grander scale.

I didn't really see it as a ethical paradox, per se. It wasn't like "Gee, he has a good point about killing half the universe". It's more about his motivation - is he crazy? Is he a little more power-hungry than he cares to admit, even to himself? Is he not quite as altruistic as he seems? And unlike Pol Pot or Hitler, there are no nationalistic/ethnic/religious biases or ulterior motives. He wants it random across the entire universe.

It's been pointed out that the film contrasts his sacrifice of Gamora with the hesitation of Scarlet Witch to kill Vision or Peter to shoot Gamora when the fate of a universe would be at stake. Assuming there was no expedient alternative to mass extinction Thanos would argue that mercy and sentiment only confound a person's conviction to do what's right.

An excellent point. Or if Quill had kept his temper in check on Titan, Tony and Peter (Parker) would have gotten the gauntlet off.

It just seems like the film wants to paint him as this tragic Shakespearean villain, worthy of perhaps a little sympathy. Haunted by tragedy that makes him single-minded (indeed, perhaps to the point of insanity) in attempting to avoid another such tragedy, failing to see that he's become the very catastrophe he claims he's trying to prevent.

It reminds me of the first X-Men movie. Is Magneto insane? Arrogant? Damaged? All of the above? I keep coming back to that scene inside the Statue of Liberty where Logan calls bull**** on Magneto who, for all his lofty talk about the evils and bigotry of regular humanity, would not risk his own life in the "mutating machine", and instead opted to sacrifice an innocent 14-year old girl.

In the same vein, given the way Thanos opts to carry out his plan, when he is literally holding all the cards with no one to stop him, I'm not sure he earns even that small dollop of sympathy.
 
Last edited:
I saw it yesterday and almost everything I predicted came true. It was so incredibly predictable. You know no one is really dead because they'll just travel back in time and get the Infinity Stones before Thanos does since they know where they are etc. There was no gravity whatsoever to anyone's death because I know they'll just do the typical sci-fi nonsense and go back in time and fix it. When Black Panther and Bucky 'died' I actually laughed because I know they're getting their own trilogies.
 
Eliminating half the existing population of the galaxy is expedient. Simply put, it's the shortest route between two points. I believe that seeing his planet suffer and die drove Thanos over the edge and that he no longer cares what others think. This is the way he's decided it's going to be and we're going to fix this as quickly as possible. If that means a whole lotta people gotta die? Well, that sucks, but they'll get over it, which was his point in bringing up the fact that Gamorra's homeworld, post-Thanos, was a paradise.

I hear what you are saying, but back on Gamora's planet, all Thanos had was military might. No time-, space-, or reality-altering powers. But once you control space, reality and especially time? "Expedient" loses all meaning.

I saw it yesterday and almost everything I predicted came true. It was so incredibly predictable. You know no one is really dead because they'll just travel back in time and get the Infinity Stones before Thanos does since they know where they are etc. There was no gravity whatsoever to anyone's death because I know they'll just do the typical sci-fi nonsense and go back in time and fix it. When Black Panther and Bucky 'died' I actually laughed because I know they're getting their own trilogies.

Yes, I think because we know that these films were originally titled "Infinity War, Part 1" and "Infinity War, Part 2", we all expected a cliffhanger. For me, the suspense was more in who was going to die, and who was going to be left behind to eventually turn back the clock.

I found it interesting that all of the original Avengers survived; I wonder if that is a hint of some kind.
 
Last edited:
Not sure why you altered my quote. I never said "less horrifying ways to commit mass extinction". "Extinction" isn't even his goal.
That's odd. I didn't intend to alter your quote. Maybe I mixed up your quote with mine. If I did, I'm sorry. But if you're not calling it "mass extinction" then I am.

Funny. But still, he can do literally anything with the IG, right?
Apparently not. I'm sure there are parameters that conveniently haven't been described.

Clearly, Stormbreaker in the chest did not pose any real impediment to a plan that he had been working on for, as you noted, centuries. He could have just used the Time Gem again.
It seems Stormbreaker hit his chest deep to the left pectoralis at an angle where it was able to lacerate the posterior cord of the left brachial plexus thus affecting the root of the radial nerve resulting in a palsy that confounded his ability to make the appropriate supination/pronation gesture to apply the Time gem. Since his median nerve was intact he could still snap his fingers.

Or maybe you need the deep mental focus of a sorcerer supreme to apply the Time gem/stone. Every time it's applied the user is breathing and gesturing deliberately. It doesn't seem like something that's applied in the middle of a melee. If you have the pain of a giant foreign object in your thorax I should think it might be enough to affect your ability to mentally concentrate.

Take your pick.

That undercuts his whole motivation, or at least what he says his motivation is. He's not looking to take life for "fun". The movie takes pains to demonstrate that he doesn't want to do any of this, but feels he has to do it
Why is it so hard to conceive that, in his state of mind, the added casualties are acceptable collateral damage?

Well, that's just it. Is he? Seems like the movie tries to play it both ways.
I should more appropriately say he's a psychopath. Ever deal with psychopaths? I happen to have done so in my line of work. They're not completely random. Often they're motivated by an underlying twisted rationale.


I didn't really see it as a ethical paradox, per se. It wasn't like "Gee, he has a good point about killing half the universe". It's more about his motivation - is he crazy? Is he a little more power-hungry than he cares to admit, even to himself? Is he not quite as altruistic as he seems? And unlike Pol Pot or Hitler, there are no nationalistic/ethnic/religious biases or ulterior motives. He wants it random across the entire universe.
Don't forget Kodos the Executioner from Tarsus IV. In all cases there was a rationale for mass killings in the interest of a greater good whether it be altruism or social nationalism. The point is they weren't simply trying to perpetuate evil. Everyone is the good person in their own mind.


It just seems like the film wants to paint him as this tragic Shakespearean villain, worthy of perhaps a little sympathy. Haunted by tragedy that makes him single-minded (indeed, perhaps to the point of insanity) in attempting to avoid another such tragedy, failing to see that he's become the very catastrophe he claims he's trying to prevent. I'm not sure he earns that sympathy.
Tragic, though it may be, the film doesn't mandate that you feel sympathy for his character.

trekconscience4.jpg
 
Last edited:
That's odd. I didn't intend to alter your quote. Maybe I mixed up your quote with mine. If I did, I'm sorry. But if you're not calling it "mass extinction" then I am.

"Genocide", yes. Gamora uses that exact term. "Extinction" means wiping out a population entirely, and that is precisely what (he claims) he is trying to avoid.

Why is it so hard to conceive that, in his state of mind, the added casualties are acceptable collateral damage?

It's not hard. I just don't think "collateral damage" applies. That term describes casualties that are unavoidable "side-effects" of your methodology. Is anything "unavoidable" with a fully-loaded IG?

I should more appropriately say he's a psychopath. Ever deal with psychopaths? I happen to have done so in my line of work. They're not completely random. Often they're motivated by an underlying twisted rationale.

That again gets to the heart of the question. Is he a "psychopath"? I wonder how Markus and McFeely would describe him.

Don't forget Kodos the Executioner from Tarsus IV. In all cases there was a rationale for mass killings in the interest of a greater good. I'm not sure they did so because they wanted to perpetuate evil. Everyone is the good person in their own mind.

Agreed. You see someone who claims they are acting only for the "greater good" and, while regretful of their actions, are doing "only what is necessary", but then you peel back a few layers on that onion and you say "Hey, man - you really didn't opt for the least horrific path. There are far less brutal ways you could have gone, so your claims of 'regretful but necessary evil' are bull****."

Tragic, though it may be, the film doesn't mandate that you feel sympathy for his character.

Of course nothing is mandated, but I think it's clear they go to some pains to add a sympathetic note to the character.
 
A Samurai though his head be cut off , should be able to complete one more action with certainty .
Even with stormbreaker in his chest Thanos proved he has samurai focus and conviction !

By the way you should always remember..


MAGNETO WAS RIGHT !
 
That's odd. I didn't intend to alter your quote. Maybe I mixed up your quote with mine. If I did, I'm sorry. But if you're not calling it "mass extinction" then I am.

"Genocide", yes. Gamora uses that exact term. "Extinction" means wiping out a population entirely, and that is precisely what (he claims) he is trying to avoid.

Why is it so hard to conceive that, in his state of mind, the added casualties are acceptable collateral damage?

It's not hard. I just don't think "collateral damage" applies. That term describes casualties that are unavoidable "side-effects" of your methodology. Is anything "unavoidable" with a fully-loaded IG?

But your comment about "state of mind" is well-taken. Is he capable of a less-horrifying approach, but just doesn't care? Or, in his mind, is this the only way to do it?

I should more appropriately say he's a psychopath. Ever deal with psychopaths? I happen to have done so in my line of work. They're not completely random. Often they're motivated by an underlying twisted rationale.

I work with other lawyers all day, so maybe?

Markus and McFeely don’t appear to think he’s a psychopath. They describe him as smart, principled, sincere and “in many ways, the protagonist of this film”. They further said (paraphrasing slightly), “you know how you could see both sides of the argument in ‘Civil War’? We want people to feel the same way about Thanos in this movie. Otherwise, you just have this giant blue madman, and that’s interesting for only about 25 minutes.”

Don't forget Kodos the Executioner from Tarsus IV. In all cases there was a rationale for mass killings in the interest of a greater good. I'm not sure they did so because they wanted to perpetuate evil. Everyone is the good person in their own mind.

Agreed. You see someone who claims they are acting only for the "greater good" and, while regretful of their actions, are doing "only what is necessary", but then you peel back a few layers on that onion and you say "Hey, man - you really didn't opt for the least horrific path. There are far less brutal ways you could have gone, so your claims of 'regretful but necessary evil' are bull****."

Tragic, though it may be, the film doesn't mandate that you feel sympathy for his character.

Of course nothing is mandated, but Markus and McFeely have said on numerous occasions that they want you to feel some level of sympathy for Thanos. My point is that the film's denouement - how he chooses to execute his plan - makes me feel even less sympathy for him.
 
Last edited:
Is there any comic book precedent for Thanos seeing himself as this altruist who’s willing to make the big, tough decisions to save half of the universe from itself? I always thought that in the comics, he was destroying half the life in the universe simply to appease the physical embodiment of Death. Has that changed?

Depends what version you're talking about. They retcon and reboot all the time. in 2013 they had a small stand 5 comic series about his origins called "Thanos Rising" it ends basically the same way as you put it, him trying to woo Death. Honestly the whole comic angle is corny.. He's in love with Death, who is in love with Deadpool, who just wants to die but I do want to say I recall them trying to portray him as someone making the tough choices that he thinks is right.. Or maybe I'm thinking of Doom in the 2015 Secret Wars arc.
 
And another thing - should Thanos have been able to beat Thor that easily at the beginning of the film? I thought at the end of "Ragnarok", Thor was at Allfather power levels - basically the same as Odin himself. Am I wrong on that? If not, then am I correct in saying that Thor should have been able to slaughter Obsidian Maw in the blink of an eye, and also at least given IG-less Thanos a serious run for his money?

Or did Thor get cut off from the Odinforce when Asgard was destroyed? Since Heimdall was able to call upon it to open the Bifrost one last time, I'm not sure.
 
It's not hard. I just don't think "collateral damage" applies. That term describes casualties that are unavoidable "side-effects" of your methodology. Is anything "unavoidable" with a fully-loaded IG?
Your entire argument is founded on the presumption that the gauntlet confers the ability to do absolutely anything at any time instantaneously. That is pure conjecture on your part.

If that were the case why does he even need to snap his fingers? Already they mentioned he needs to make a fist to marshal it’s full power so there are parameters.

It would seem that applying conditions, such as only killing the sick, elderly or to sentient beings not operating heavy equipment, even if possible, would require a good deal more mental effort and time.

But your comment about "state of mind" is well-taken. Is he capable of a less-horrifying approach, but just doesn't care? Or, in his mind, is this the only way to do it?
In the absence of codified gauntlet rules it seems to me that expediency is a plausible argument.

Bemoaning the added casualties from falling helicopters would seem as trivial as suing someone who sparined your ankle in the act of rescuing you from a burning vehicle. What kind of person practices that kind of logic?

I work with other lawyers all day, so maybe?
... never mind. ;)

All kidding aside, the only truth should be obvious. Any movie, to a greater or lesser degree, is capable of being picked apart for logical inconsistencies. Your capacity to suspend disbelief is going to be proportional to your enjoyment of a film’s narrative and characters. This is why I wouldn’t complain of the fabric patterns in the costuming of The Seven Samurai not being true to the period, but I won’t hesitate to pick apart BvS or JL all day for wasting my time, money and hopes.

I enjoyed IW greatly. Evidently you didn’t enjoy it as much.
 
Last edited:
388FA29D-01E5-4F5D-987B-C1BA6F3889E6.png

Your entire argument is founded on the presumption that the gauntlet confers the ability to do absolutely anything at any time instantaneously. That is pure conjecture on your part.

I’ll disagree on it being pure conjecture. Your interpretation may differ, but whenever Gamora, Wong, Dr. Strange, Nebula or anyone else “in the know” talk about the consequences of Thanos getting all six gems, it’s all framed as “His power will be limitless. Period.” And, again, when you are the master of time, does “instantaneous” really mean anything anymore?

If that were the case why does he even need to snap his fingers? Already they mentioned he needs to make a fist to marshal it’s full power so there are parameters.

Does the IG *really* require a fist or a finger-snap to work? Or is that just a physiological manifestation of Thanos’ concentration and focus? Do you actually need to furrow your eyebrows to think harder?

Of course, Thanos talking about “snapping fingers” was a plot tool to telegraph what was happening when he actually snapped.

Bemoaning the added casualties from falling helicopters would seem as trivial as suing someone who sparined your ankle in the act of rescuing you from a burning vehicle. What kind of person practices that kind of logic?

Negligible in his “grand scheme”? Arguably. But I think Markus & McFeely could have made a stronger case for “feeling for Thanos” if they showed him going out of his way to avoid millions or billions of ancillary deaths that were not required for his plan.

Make no mistake, his plan is horrifying and must be prevented, of course, but it certainly would have added a fascinating (IMO) extra layer to the character if he took pains to use the IG to make sure no one suffered unnecessarily. I think that, in so many words, was my main point.

All kidding aside, the only truth is obvious. Any movie, to a greater or lesser degree, is capable of being picked apart for logical inconsistencies. Your capacity to suspend disbelief is going to be proportional to your enjoyment of a film’s narrative and characters. This is why I wouldn’t complain of the fabric patterns in the costuming of The Seven Samurai not being true to the period, but I won’t hesitate to pick apart BvS or JL all day for wasting my time, money and hopes.

I enjoyed IW greatly. Evidently you didn’t enjoy it as much.

On the contrary, despite what I feel are missed opportunities to make Thanos a little more sympathetic, I enjoyed it a lot. I also enjoyed TLJ a lot, even though I really didn’t like how Rian Johnson handled Luke.

The propeller on my nerd beanie always spins fastest the 2-3 hours right after I see a film like this. Quibbles come up and get amplified in the initial excitement, but die down eventually. It was really great.
 
Last edited:
This thread is more than 5 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top